This is an archive of past discussions about Fred Thompson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
How do we get Fred Thompson to run for President in 2008? I was living in Tennessee when Fred was first elected to Congress and it was not until later that I learned that he was an actor. I have liked his politics and acting ever since. I would love to see him run in 2008! [22:18, 8 November 2006 Tmpafford]
We absolutely need to get Mr. Thompson to run for the Presidency in 2008. Time is running out, and we need a viable candidate which can take on the "big tent" ideals of Reagan and Lincoln.
Senator Thompson, please run. [18:55, 23 January 2007 66.28.212.34]
Senator Fred Thompson, your time has come, and your country needs you now! you are the only person that can do the job, and do it right. So PLEASE will you run for the President of our country, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SAR-Ranch [14:14, March 27, 2007 ]
Guys, I'd like to see him run as well but this is probably not the right place. Instead, I'd suggest contacting Mr. Thompson's office directly (preferably, in writing to make more of an impact), adding your name to one of the countless petitions (if you so desire) or using one of the many websites (like, for exameple, draftfredthompson.com or Fred08.com) dedicated to this very subject. --Seed 2.020:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What are the man's politics
This page doesn't seem to actually talk about the man's politics besides the fact that he's a republican. What are his views on abortion, gun control, stem-cell research, tax reform? Do they fall in-line with the party platform? What was his voting record while acting as a Senator? etc 66.36.131.17723:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, not much about his politics. Not much about him besides he is an actor and a bio with none of his agenda. Doesn't even say he is a conservative. I think he always says that hisself within a few minutes of interviews. Oh well, if you visit Al Gore's page it doesn't even say anything about gun control even though the issue cost him Tennessee and the election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
That is why you have to remember history as it happens cause those that write either lie or unintentially leave huge things out. [16:44, 3 February 2007 Coked]
Well, unless he re-enters politics I wouldn't worry about it. He supported John McCain in 2000 which to me is a strike against him. McGehee14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Had it occurred to you, Coked, that maybe the rest of the world doesn't believe that the issue is that important, and that no historians or political analysts think it cost him the election? --Orange Mike15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Tennessee born & bred; preferred Al Sr.)
Orangemike, I hope that you (and other liberals) sincerely believe that gun control is not an important issue. Not only did it lose Tennessee for Al Gore Jr. (I'd like to see your list of historians and political analysts who disagree), but it also cost Democrats the House in 1994, thanks to the "assault" weapons ban. Why don't you ask your favorite Democrat about his or her position? You won't be able to find it, because it's the third rail of Democrat elections, for one reason: because the issue IS important. Did you notice how remarks from Democrat candidates about increasing gun control were conspicuously absent after the Virginia Tech shootings? User:crcjfc1982
A great place to learn about Thompson's conservative politics is on the National Review website. He seems to be a fairly strong Republican and conservative, espousing traditionally conservative views about federalism, in particular. User:crcjfc1982
My first reaction on reading the Thompson page was that it should say something about his politics. After reading this Talk section, I looked at a couple of other candidates' (Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) pages. They both have Political Positions of so-and-so sections (linked from the main page). I think there should be a Political Positions of Fred Thompson page, linked from the main page. Sbowers314:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
RICH LOWRY: It's extraordinary. You know, he does a couple of media appearances, and he's third place in the Republican race, basically, which speaks to how fluid and dynamic the race is, and the discontent, especially among conservatives, with the current candidates...
JIM LEHRER: With the front-runners.
RICH LOWRY: Sure, and he seems to be taking votes from all of them, potentially. But if he gets in, it really hurts Mitt Romney, and may make it impossible for Mitt Romney to win. And, you know, three weeks ago, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that, you know, he's playing with this, it's good for his name I.D., it's nice to be out there. But, you know, I was talking to people today in a position to know who now put it at about 50-50 that he may get in, because those polls have caught his eye.
I leave it to the regular editors of this page to determine if it merits inclusion in the main article.--Wowaconia04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
College names
Thompson's two first colleges have undergone name changes since he attended. The old names, piped to the articles under the new, are how we have it listed now. Another editor added information about school name changes to this article, which to me seems like a lot of irrelevant clutter: so, I reverted. But I'm putting this in here now in case anyone wants to discuss it. --Orange Mike15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Actors in politics
I thought that a bad idea BEFORE Reagan. Afterwards, I knew it for a fact.
All politicians are actors -- but electing one who has engaged in professional acting is, in my opinion, extremely dangerous, foolhardy and ill-advised -- and equally so for ALL political persuasions.
I had no opinion of actors as politicians before President Reagan and still don't. A nonsense criteria. Should say that in my opinion Ronald Reagan was the best President of my lifetime (68 years) and that that will also be close to history's judgement, although FDR had all the hoopla of WWII going for him...and he didn't do badly as a wartime leader. [user jrumbaugh 8:30, 2 Apr 2007]
Thanks for telling us, I for one was dying to know. Next time though, you might want to think about making a personal website for this sort of thing. Cheers! Just Another Fat Guy06:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh says that politcs is (are?) a stage for bad acting and bad actors. Some people say politics is pure BS, but BS makes good soil amendment for infertile ground. RR was neither a great actor nor a bad actor, but his acting ability really had nothing to do with his commitment to conservative ideals, whatever anyone thinks of them or him. Acting is just a skill, the ability to handle one's self in front of the camera. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.171.106 (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Less Notable Fred Thompsons
It is reasonably arguable that Fred Dalton Thompson, the former Senator from Tenn., not Frederick A.Thompson (Broadway Writer) or Fred Thompson (Silent Movie Actor) is who people are looking for when they search within Wikipedia for "Fred Thompson." I know this sounds a bit silly, but could the search go straight to his page with links for Disambiguations of Fred Thompson beneath the name, like exists on many other Wiki entries with common titles? Thoughts or opinions on this?
Fred Thompson is a common name; this is how Wikipedia normally handles such situations. The lawyer/actor/politician is temporarily trendy, but that may not last, so a dab page is the standard procedure. --Orange Mike16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. It's a petty topic, and I wasn't sure what the SOP was. Thanks for the info.
External Links
The "Draft Fred Thompson" external link should remain, as it is a larger and more active/significant external link than the unofficial external link that was not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.8.71 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
If you think that is so, then make the change. I deleted the one that looked like a BBS/forum, rather than an actual organizational website; but I haven't got a dog in this hunt, so if you believe the wrong one got deleted, go for it; "Be bold!". --Orange Mike23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll add it back in, but keep in mind that I am very biased in favor of the Senator, and if others feel the link is inwarranted and "too gushy", the issue should be discussed without my biased in the mix.
The site's bias is inherent in the name; none of us would be misled that the site in question is neutral on the FDT issue! Thank you for your effort to maintain proper neutrality here, whoever you are. --Orange Mike20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (left Tennessee years ago because of politicians like Thompson, Beard, Dunn, etc.)
Lobbyist Changes
I am going to delete all the references to Thompson's lobbying work unless sources are added. These appear to have been inserted by an individual looking to make the biography appear less favorable.
Whoever you are, that's a bit excessive. The editor in question is probably not a Thompson fan, but his lobbying activities are a part of his life history, as they would be for somebody from the other side of the aisle. --Orange Mike02:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, but it seems like the person went through his entry and systematically removed favorable biographical materials and replaced them with unfavorable material. Note that there are no longer any references to his work as a special counsel to two Senate committees and the Governor of Tennessee in the 1980s. Now its just all his work as a lobbyist, again unsourced. It seems very suspicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.46.252 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Ibagli cutting information pertaining to two separate Senate bills
If you follow the reference links, you will find a complete listing of ALL the legislative bills that Thompson voted for as a U.S. Senator and as indicated by the full text below, you have deleted referenced information (full legislative description, bill numbers, and dates follows):
Current revision (02:54, 1 April 2007)
Ibagli (Talk | contribs)
(→U.S. Senate Votes By Fred Thompson - duplication)
NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Would have prohibited job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Status: Bill Defeated Y)49; N)50; NV)1
Reference: Employment Non-Discrimination Act; Bill S. 2056 ; vote number 1996-281 on Sep 10, 1996
NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation: Opposes topic 3
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture.
Reference: Bill S.625 ; vote number 2002-147 on Jun 11, 2002
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Vote on an amendment that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. The previous definition included only racial, religious or ethnic bias.
Reference: Bill S.2549 ; vote number 2000-136 on Jun 20, 2000
4.129.64.18604:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The wiki link on Florence State College already pulls up the wiki page for the University of North Alabama, so why is this duplication needed?
4.129.64.18605:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Fred Thompson: listed religion
I followed the link for Thompson's listed, but it does not link to any statement directly from Thompson pertaining to his religion (if any) or from his official U.S. Senate biography --- in this case, the extremely weak reference to Thompson being "baptized in the Church of Christ" is only attributed to a Thompson "spokesman"...
I do know that Thompson married the second time around at his wife's "Church of Christ" in Naiperville, IL (or some such place)...but being married in a particular church does not make a member of that church, etc. and in any case, until Thompson is actually quoted in the media specifically commenting about his religion, this entry needs to be omitted.
4.129.64.18605:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. The church that they were married in and the one that Thompson was baptised in are actually two completly different places with similar names. The Church of Christ has a large following in middle/west Tennessee, especially in FDT's childhood. I took the statement by his spokesperson as Thompson's view of his religion. The safer choice here would be to wait for an official statement. I'm sure it will get lots of talk if/when he becomes an official candidate. CJC4715:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what the official position of the Church of Christ is toward a man baptized in the church divorcing his first wife...?
4.129.65.106
Being a member of The Church of Christ myself I can say that, as a rule, that is to say a "scriptural divorce", can only occur when adultry is committed.
The Wikepedia biography of thompson actually states that "Thompson married Jeri Kehn, twenty five years his junior, on June 29, 2002 at First Congregational United Church of Christ, Naperville, Illinois, having first met her on July 4, 1996.[16]". The United Church of Christ organization has little New Testament doctrinal similarity to the Churches of Christ.
U.S. Senator Fred Dalton Thompson and Lorrie Morgan (1994-1996)
User:71.104.186.134 is vandalizing significant material pertaining to the two year (1994-1996) romantic relationship between U.S. Senator Fred Thompson and country music recording artist Lorrie Morgan:
71.104.186.134 (removed the Lorrie Morgan website under external links)
71.104.186.134 Are Thompson's girlfriends really worth mentioning under his senate career?)
Yes, particularly for the references pertaining to the brief Morgan material as Thompson had Morgan in tow as his date for many of the GOP fundraising and other political events that he attended while he was a U.S. Senator, and as mentioned in the material vandalized by User:71.104.186.134, Morgan stated in her own book that she had given some measure of serious consideration towards marrying Thompson:
As a U.S. Senator, Thompson gained considerably more media attention for his active D.C. social night life with much younger girlfriends, and the Tennessee senator had been linked to a variety of women, including pundit-pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, Time magazine writer Margaret Carlson, Nathans restaurant owner Carol Joynt and Washington PR executive Sydney Ferguson. Thompson also had a two year relationship (1994-1996) with county music recording artist Lorrie Morgan of Hendersonville, Tennessee. In her book Forever Yours, Faithfully: My Love Story, Morgan states that "For a while, I wanted to marry Fred, but I knew that he could not accept me as I am." (p.263)
and there are valid reasons for posting the other previously news-media reported Thompson gal pals, including a reference not even posted to the FDT wikipage:
[...]
"Although Mr Thompson's film career could add glamour to Mr Bush's campaign, leading Republicans fear that his romantic exploits would lead to unseemly speculation about who might replace Tipper Gore as "Second Lady".
Earlier this year [2000], the New York Post reported a "catfight" on Capitol Hill with Jeri Kehn, a 33-year-old blonde who is communications director of the Senate Republican Conference, denouncing "all these women" who were pursuing him. "They won't leave him alone," she was quoted as saying. "I can't get up to get a cocktail at a party without coming back and finding some girl sitting in my chair."[1]
By Toby Harnden in Washington Telegraph.co.uk
Last Updated: 2:07pm BST 19/06/2001
If you honestly think that having dated a completely unknown non-entity for two years warrants mention under his senate career (how dating = senate career I have no idea) AND a headshot of his former date, then you need to step back and realize you are being completely biased. Seems like you're a pumper for Lorrie Morgan (whoever the heck she is), and you are trying to use Thompson's current buzz as a way to promote Lorrie Morgan. I'm not vandalizing, I'm cleaning up irrelevent BS you feel compelled to litter the site with. It will be removed every time you put it up. Sorry, it's not worth a mention here.
Wow..after reading all of this by 71.104.186.134, I cannot believe that you failed to delete all of the "Draft Fred '08" external links by your same logic.
4.88.154.25003:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And how do you figure that Lorrie Morgan is, in your words, "...a completely unknown non-entity for two years" as Lorrie Morgan was near or at the very top of the country music billboard charts throughout 1989 to 1999 --- particularly during 1995 with her singles "I Didn't Know My Own Strength" (#1) and "Back in Your Arms Again" (#4) all while she was romantically involved with U.S. Senator Fred Thompson...
Need more conformation about the 1994-1996 Lorrie Morgan-Fred Thompson connection? Check out the following excerpt from Lorrie Morgans' book Forever Yours, Faithfully: My Love Story:
[...]
It was great to go out with an older man [U.S. Senator Fred Thompson] who was very successful on his own. I felt very secure with him, and he became a wonderful friend, a caring, inspirational man who would encourage me not to doubt myself (which, maybe you can tell by now, is one of my best things).
Fred is an extremely generous man. He wined and dined me and bought me presents --- furs, earrings, Chanel shoes with real high heels.
For a while, I enjoyed my first exposure to politics. It was interesting to hear about political conversations, and people even began talking about Fred as a potential president. It was inevitable that I would be sitting at a glamorous party and would have the flickering thought, So, this is what it's like to be a First Lady. Hell, I could handle that. Then I would say, "Oops, better drop the 'hell'"
[...]
I put myself to the task of being a great companion to a stimulating and important man, and as a result I become boring. I lost my spunk, my spontaneity, I had to stop and think about the political implications of everything before I uttered a word in public. Was this a Democratic issue? Was this a Republican issue? I could not trust my best asset, my gut instincts. In other words, I could not be myself.
Fred let me know that it was important how I dressed. Sedate was in. Even if I felt like a little flair that night, forget it --- we might be with men who had big wallets and insecure wives, wives who were a little older than I was. So get that basic black dress out of the closet. And no cleavage, baby.
Fred's senator buddies loved me, and some of my friends said that they never seen me happier. For a while, I wanted to marry Fred, but I knew he could not accept me as I am.
[...]
Forever Yours, Faithfully: My Love Story. pp. 262-263. Lorrie Morgan with George Vecsey. 1997. Ballantine Books. ISBN0-345-41297-4
The fact that Thompson dated Lorrie Morgan for two years might be worth a one-sentence mention in a "personal life" section, if this article had one. But it definitely does not merit an entire section and a multiple-paragraph block quote. Eseymour20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding Eseymour --- is not only was Lorrie Morgan and Fred Thompson in a two year relationship, but that Lorrie Morgan was also active on the Tennessee campaign trail for Thompson in both the 1994 and 1996 U.S. Senator elections!!!4.88.55.22721:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Writing style
{{shortcut|WP:BLP#STYLE}}
Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
[...]
The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources [such as Lorrie Morgan] have published about the subject [Fred Dalton Thompson] and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism [e.g. Draft Fred Thompson '08] point of view.4.88.154.717:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
71.104.186.134 per abovementioned Lorrie Morgan
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Fred Dalton Thompson, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. User:71.104.186.134
User contributions From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For 71.104.186.134:
19:08, 1 April 2007 71.104.186.134 (Talk) (Removed the link to the Lorrie Morgan site AGAIN. This page is not here to help Morgan's career. Keep it NPOV)
18:58, 1 April 2007 71.104.186.134 (Talk) (I'm not letting blatantly biased BS stay - bring it back all you want, I'll juust keep deleting it)
06:55, 1 April 2007 71.104.186.134 (Talk) (removed the Lorrie Morgan website under external links)
06:52, 1 April 2007 71.104.186.134 (Talk) (Are Thompson's girlfriends really worth mentioning under his senate career?)
06:50, 1 April 2007 71.104.186.134 (Talk) (removed S&L info not directly related to Thompson - keep it NPOV folks)
"In the final months of his term, Thompson joined the cast of the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, playing the character Arthur Branch. In doing so, he became the first serving U.S. Senator concurrently to hold a full-time television acting job; however, his first scenes as Branch were filmed during the Senate's August 2002 recess, so he missed no legislative time in order to act on television."
So what length of time are we actually referring to here: the "...final months" or "...the Senate's [sic] August 2002 recess"? Unless the NBC television series Law & Order was being filmed in Tennessee during either the August 2002 recess or the "...final months", Senator Thompson was certainly not available at his district offices to all his constituents back home in Tennessee, I would suggest that the comment be first referenced for dates and then edited to something as follows:
"In the final months of his term, Thompson joined the cast of the long-running NBC television series Law & Order [date inserted here], playing the character Arthur Branch.
4.88.154.25003:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
NPOV Abound Here=
Folks, I'm pro-Thompson. I'll admit it. But Wikipedia is not here to act as an outlet for people to champion or destroy. I have added what I consider to be relevent issues (Gallup poll, for example). When throwing in that edit, I attempted to paint the info in a neutral light, as is evidenced by what I wrote (the poll was good, but not announcing will hurt him). All I ask is the same from other users here. Mentioning one girfriend he had in the 90's is completely irrelevent. Furthermore, adding a stock photo/headshot of her is absolutely pointless in the article. Regardless, I don't see how anyone can claim that adding a link to her website is at all appropriate. Whoever keeps adding it in obviously wants to bring attention to Ms. Morgan (perhaps it's her PR guy/gal?), and wants people to know she's written a book and has a webpage. If anyone can give me a logical reason why any of that information should remain, I'm open to hear it. Just know you'll have a hard time proving your case. I'll go so far as to say that mentioning that he dated her for two years is "relevent", although I still think it's a waste of data. However, I will not allow mention of her website, her book, or a glamorous headshot of her to remain, because this site is not here to promote her.
Furthermore, the S&L info is completely biased. Every time I have altered it, I leave in the fact that he was a lobbyist for S&Lde-regulation, and that deregulation may have led to the collapse of S&L. I think that's enough, as really all we've got is a very tenuous causal link from Thompson to S&L collapse. It warrants mention, but not to the extent that some people with a political axe to grind think. It does not require three paragraphs with multiple inflammatory quotes alluding to perceived greed and malfeasance. Seriously folks, it is biased.
I try to be as fair as possible, and on numerous occasions I have mentioned I ampro-Thompson, and that perhaps others should decide. If you feel something really, truly needs to be mentioned, throw it in. But ask yourself before you do if you are trying to make a statement, or trying to inform of relevent material.
And yet you fail to sign on at Talk:Fred DaltonThompson with either your Username of IP...
4.129.65.106, It is clear you cannot maintain a neutral stance on this topic. Your repeated vandalism of this article with irrelevent Lorrie Morgan information, headshots, and website links, as well as your refusal to accept that your S&L analysis is flawed at best, illustrates your lack of qualifications in editing this article. Please refran from further vandalism, or you will be reported. Thank you.
So report me already...country music recording artist Lorrie Morgan was (and to some lesser degree) significant in both the personal and political life of Fred Dalton Thompson during the early part (1994 through 1996) of his stint as a U.S. Senator --- Morgan documents in her book where she attending G.O.P. political events and fundraisers as Thompson's date during these years.
Pd THOR removing other's Talk comments/images
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Fred Dalton Thompson. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. vandalism by User:Pd THOR
Wikipedia:Vandalism: Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam,vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism.
Pd THOT contributions
15:39, 2 April 2007 Pd THOR (Talk | contribs) m (- fair-use image from talkspace;)
I went ahead and put a "candidate" header on the FDT page this afternoon, also cleaning up some language (minor copy edits) in the article itself. I realize that FDT has not announced a candidacy for the presidency, but he is also now beginning to enter the sphere of public discussion and scrutiny such that I would imagine this Wikipedia article is about to begin acting like a candidate page and, accordingly, people ought to know such. If anyone thinks I jumped the gun on this one, I'd love to hear your thoughts - I am not particularly wed to the header, but I did want to create some sort of public notice that this is unlikely to be a static article for the near future. Editor Emeritus17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please remove the "candidate" header from Fred Dalton Thompson until such time that Thompson actually declares his candidacy within the 2008 U.S. Presidential race --- the goal is to make this Wiki page accurate and not "speculative" in nature. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
I see no reason why the "candidate" header should be removed. In effect, the guy is a candidate, even though he hasn't announced. The only vocal person against the header is the IP address above me, but he's suspect in his rationale for being here. I say throw it on!
Thompson is not an 2008 candidate for the office of U.S. President until he officially announces AND files his candidacy records with the Federal Election Commission - period. Take your partisan advoacacy to some other web site...
There is nothing "partisan" about considering somebody a candidate! We've got a legitimate dispute going about whether FDT is a candidate, and the other editor (unsigned though she/he may be) is taking a position that encompasses a broader definition than your rather narrow, legalistic one. That does not constitute "partisan advocacy"! --Orange Mike14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's be careful with the definitions we throw out. If FEC paperwork is the threshold, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not presidential "candidates" - it's a technicality, but the paperwork often comes much later for various reasons. (This is why there is the tortured line between "exploratory committee" and "campaign.") I don't mind that my original candidate header was removed - I put it on this discussion page because I knew it was a questionable issue and deserved discussion. But I also don't think we should hide behind form over substance, especially when the form itself is errant. The header exists to warn people of frequent forthcoming edits - such is certainly the situation here. So unless we think FDT is a "current event," I'm back to thinking a candidate header is proper. Editor Emeritus16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur. There's a large amount of activity on this article due to Thompson's statements that he's considering a run. If not the candidate header, perhaps some other header regarding persons who are currently in the news. Where can one look for these kinds of headers? I couldn't find the candidate header from the Template_messages page. Eseymour17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
List of votes
I have removed the list of Thompson's Senate votes. The page that lists this information is linked in the "External links" section. Although a politician's voting record is relevant information about his career, to list those votes within the text of their biography doesn't seem like good style to me. I did a quick check of articles on three or four other current and past Senators and none of them include a list of a dozen or so "important votes." Eseymour14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The listing of the votes seems less like and attempt to inform, and more like and attempt to discredit. I'm currently composing, what I hope to be, a comprehensive page on Thompson, with fleshed out sections for his prosecutor career, his lobyyist career, his acting career, and his senate career. Hopefully it will provide enough neutral and good info to balance out attempts at character damage by anti-Thompson people.
I disagree strongly for comments previously stated on this Talk page but deleted by users advocating the "Draft Fred Thompson '08" movement on the Fred Dalton Thompson wiki page4.129.68.312:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the vote list again. None of the current Senate leaders have such a list in their article. One wonders why only 12 of the 17 votes highlighted by OnTheIssues were chosen for inclusion in this article. Anyway, if you believe this information is important to include, please explain why we should break the precedent established for other politicians. Thanks. Eseymour17:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
What are the man's politics
This page doesn't seem to actually talk about the man's politics besides the fact that he's a republican. What are his views on abortion, gun control, stem-cell research, tax reform? Do they fall in-line with the party platform? What was his voting record while acting as a Senator? etc66.36.131.17723:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, not much about his politics. Not much about him besides he is an actor and a bio with none of his agenda. Doesn't even say he is a conservative. I think he always says that hisself within a few minutes of interviews. Oh well, if you visit Al Gore's page it doesn't even say anything about gun control even though the issue cost him Tennessee and the election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
That is why you have to remember history as it happens cause those that write either lie or unintentially leave huge things out. [16:44, 3 February 2007 Coked]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I strongly disagree --- Fred Dalton Thompson is the subject's full legal name and the name that he is listed within official his U.S. Senate biography.4.129.69.24213:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
comment - The guy's full legal name is not the criterion used on Wikipedia; many people are seldom if never referred to by their full legal names. --Orange Mike13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree on Ali'i but would agree with a Fred Thompson page that redirects to the current and primary Fred Dalton Thompson page --- wait a minute, that is the hyperlink that we currently to utilize without any problems by using a "Fred Thompson" search.4.129.68.313:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Can you please show that "'Fred Dalton Thompson' is far less commonly used than 'Fred Thompson'"? He's called by the full name at IMDb,[1] the Congressional bio page,[2] opening credits for Law & Order(can't find a capture online). Please verify through some cites that this person is one who is primarily known by the shorter name (à la Ted Kennedy) as opposed to the full name (à la Mary Tyler Moore). Thanks. --SigPig |SEND - OVER05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that this move should take place. Those who are in opposition need to read the Manual of Style. He is most often referred to as "Fred Thompson," period, end of story. Italiavivi18:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Those who are supporting this need to read WP:V. Please see my above request. Can you please give some references that the simpler form of his name is the more common? It is not enough to merely take your word for it. Note I am not opposing -- I just would like to see the evidence that you seem to take for granted. --SigPig |SEND - OVER23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
NeutralOppose - Doesn't matter to me. "Go" will get you here whichever you type in, and I think both uses of the name are common enough. But if, down the road, another notable Fred Thompson shows up, we have the option of changing the current redirect to a disambiguation page. We should keep it the way it is. - Crockspot23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. For SigPig, I note that the Google hits are 995K for "Fred Thompson" and 141K for "Fred Dalton Thompson". As usual, Ghits can be taken with a grain of salt, but this includes things like The New York Times. As an actor, the longer version appears to be more common per IMDb, but both are used. Dekimasuよ!09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Orangemike per abovementioned Lorrie Morgan
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Fred Dalton Thompson, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. User:71.104.186.134
Writing style{{shortcut|WP:BLP#STYLE}}
Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone
[...]
The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources [such as Lorrie Morgan] have published about the subject [Fred Dalton Thompson] and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism [e.g. Draft Fred Thompson '08] point of view.4.88.154.717:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
User contributions From Fred Dalton Thompson Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For Orangemike:
14:06, 5 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Fred Dalton Thompson (remove Morgan-spam)
17:28, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Fred Dalton Thompson (?2008 Presidential Run - The Roe v Wade material is badlyout of place in this section, as well as sounding a trifle like a NPOV violation (at least to me, and I'm no FDT fan))4.88.154.717:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't you just love it? Lorrie's anonymous spammer boy is "cautioning" me? (And, apparently, implying I'm in favor of drafting Thompson! Given that I dislike and oppose FDT (not as much as I despise Tommy Thompson, of course), that is particularly rich!) --Orange Mike22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Orange Mike -- I think you and I disagree about some minor link issues, but I'm with you on this one. It's also particularly rich that whoever it is cautioning you doesn't even have a username... Editor Emeritus00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Don't you just love it? Lorrie's anonymous spammer boy is "cautioning" me? (And, apparently, implying I'm in favor of drafting Thompson! Given that I dislike and oppose FDT (not as much as I despise Tommy Thompson, of course), that is particularly rich!) --Orange Mike 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)"
"Anonymous spammer boy"?...reads to me like you are projecting Orangemike:
User:Orange Mike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Orange Mike.
Yeah, you've got a point there, Ali'i; I'll try hard to ratchet it down. The guy's anonymity really bothers me in a highly-charged arena like this. My mood's made worse because he doesn't seem to understand that I dislike Thompson intensely, probably since long before he ever heard of the man; but believe fiercely in the equitable application of Wiki policies and procedures to all subjects. --Orange Mike15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute...User:4.129.68.3 merely pointed out above the difference between Orangemike (being the actual Username without a space) and the pseudo-Username Orange Mike:
"Anonymous spammer boy"?...reads to me like you are projecting Orangemike:
User:Orange Mike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Orange Mike.
User:Orangemike, on the other hand, does, oh nameless one! Learn to read before you begin to edit. --Orange Mike 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Learn to read?" That kind of personal attack is not appreciated by most WikiUsers, Orangemike...or is that Orange Mike?4.129.69.22711:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
External Links
Okay, we are beginning to near a revert war with external links, so let's sort it out in here first and then stick with one policy or another on the article itself. As a potential FDT candidacy gets mulled over, there is a lot of media coverage and grassroot activism associated with this. It is my sentiment that the unofficial movement to draft him should be afforded an external link, as should any meaningful media analysis of the situation. This is not a section of the page that gets a lot of attention in the first place but, when it does, it seems to be where people go for more information (even, perhaps, non-NPOV information). I do not see the harm in letting the section grow accordingly. And if the links are to be so liberally selected as to include wedding pictures, I have to think they ought, too, contain on-point commentary and grassroots draft movements... All that said, I'm going to wait until this thread is either flushed out slightly or 24 hours elapse before I edit the section - the last thing I want is a revert war, and some anonymous IP users seem to be gunning for just that. Editor Emeritus19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
These external links are out-of-hand. I trimmed some of them, and intend to trim more. Perhaps a few of them could be added as References instead? Wikipedia is not a gathering place for links about a topic. The photos should not be in there, the draft site possibly should, the others... well, we'll see. Mahalo. --Ali'i20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it needs trimming badly, starting with fluff like the wedding photo. WIKI IS NOT... a collection of links. --Orange Mike22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Editor Emeritus:"As a potential FDT candidacy gets mulled over, there is a lot of media coverage and grassroot activism associated with this. It is my sentiment that the unofficial movement to draft him should be afforded an external link, as should any meaningful media analysis of the situation. This is not a section of the page that gets a lot of attention in the first place but, when it does, it seems to be where people go for more information (even, perhaps, non-NPOV information). I do not see the harm in letting the section grow accordingly. And if the links are to be so liberally selected as to include wedding pictures, I have to think they ought, too, contain on-point commentary and grassroots draft movements..."
I strongly disagree with your assertion that "Draft Fred Thompson '08" is somehow (in your words) "grassroot activism" as the Knoxville News-Sentinel reported that a former Thompson political aide in located in Knoxville, Tennessee was responsible for the initial efforts to launch the so-called draft movement that has lined up notable Republican political party leaders across the Tennessee and many other states across America. Consider the following definition from Grassroots:
A grassroots political movement is one driven by the constituents of a community. The term implies that the genesis of the described of a community. The term implies that the genesis of the described political movement is natural yet spontaneous and imposes a dichotomy between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures.
Please take your "Draft Fred Thompson '08" political advocacy to some other web site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name (talk • contribs) date.
Okay, let's not get personal to begin with. I am not here to promote Mr. Thompson or to dimish him - and my edits have been nonpartisan. That said, I think Orange Mike made some good points and seems to have a grasp on what is proper here and what isn't vis a vis external links. Meanwhile, if you are concerned about my editing, please sign your attacks. Editor Emeritus18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
S&L Information
Someone keeps inserting two paragraphs asserting that Thompson was a key player in the S&L crisis. The paragraph contains nothing but loaded rhetoric and are lacking in NPOV, placed solely to make Thompson look bad. I agree that it is important to note that he worked for the Garn - St. Germain bill, but alluding that that [he, Thompson] alone caused the S&L crisis is just silly. There is a link to the S&L Crisis page in the neutral statement, and if people want to learn about it, they can click there. Please refrain from continuing to update the page with material used simply to smear Thompson. This article is here to inform, not slander. Thanks.
Your "key player" and '...[he, Thompson] alone caused the S&L crisis" comments grossly misrepresent the actual referenced material as previously posted at Fred Dalton Thompson:
By 1982, Thompson worked the U.S. Congress membership as a lobbyist for passage of the Savings and Loan deregulation legislation desired by the Tennessee Savings and Loan League --- in this case, federal deregulation legislation allowing for additional government support of ailing S&Ls; giving U.S. thrifts the freedom to invest in potentially more profitable, but riskier, ventures; and eliminating interest-rate ceilings on new accounts to increase S&Ls' competitiveness. Enacted into law during in September 1982, the Senate bill pushed by Thompson was incorporated into the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. The Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 is widely credited with having laid the groundwork for the U.S. Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s.[2]
The Reagan "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments made with this tax break as a premise. This with some other "deregulation" policies favored by Thompson's lobbying clients ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history: the Savings and Loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.
An indication of this scandal's size, Martin Mayer wrote, "The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980's is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources...the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes." [3]Economist John Kenneth Galbraith called the Savings & Loan crisis "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[4]
Please take your political advocacies and historical revisions back to the Draft Fred Thompson '08 web blogs where such prattlings belong.4.129.68.313:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It is too bad that unreasonable people like you have access to editing features on this site. I sort of feel sorry for you. I hope you get well soon.
"[He, Thompson] alone caused the S&L crisis" is clearly just false (not simply POV). "[K]ey player" is arguably POV. However, I do think some reference to the S&L crisis is important context. I had added the words in bold:
"Thompson's recommendations were incorporated into the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982[5]which was a contributing factor to the Savings and Loan crisis."
I think that's a pretty mild statement, milder e.g. than the one at the Garn article. Yet it was deleted on POV grounds. I'll but it back in. If people are concerned about length of this topic, we can trim the earlier part. But I think we do need a (responsible) reference to the link to the S&L crisis.
Crust13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Registered Users Only?
I request that this site be locked so that only registered users may edit and make changes. One user in particular, who has chosen to remain anonymous, has continually vandalized the site with shameless efforts to promote the career of a B list country music star. While I have no problem with Lorrie Morgan, Fred Thompson's bio is not a forum that should be utilized to revive what is obviously the dead music career of of woman he dated over 11 years ago. I can only assume that this site will become more and more accessed by people as they learn of his possible candidacy, and it is not proper to try and use this as a forum to promote someone else in obvious bad faith. I welcome discussion from registered members on this topic. Thanks. Nibblesworth21:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to think a registered users semi-protection might not be a bad idea -- when a page gets to the constant volume of edits this one has, a little order cannot hurt. Editor Emeritus22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that Lorrie Morgan played a very significant role in helping to get Fred Dalton Thompson elected and re-elected during their time together (1994-1996) by attending political rallies and events arm-in-arm with Thompson as his date; Thompson and Morgan were romantically recognizied by the national U.S. news media as a romantic "item"; Morgan considered marriage to Thompson, AND; Morgan herself had several single records at or near the top of the country music billboard charts at during the same 1994-1996. The only problem with the NPOV Lorrie Morgan posting is that there are unfortunately some editors who are being permitted to compromise the Fred Dalton Thompsom Wikipedia page solely for partisan political advocacy related to a "Draft Fred '08" movement...
Nibblesworth: "One user in particular, who has chosen to remain anonymous, has continually vandalized the site with shameless efforts to promote the career of a B list country music star. While I have no problem with Lorrie Morgan, Fred Thompson's bio is not a forum that should be utilized to revive what is obviously the dead music career of of woman he dated over 11 years ago. I can only assume that this site will become more and more accessed by people as they learn of his possible candidacy, and it is not proper to try and use this as a forum to promote someone else in obvious bad faith."
I also think that it is hypocritical to attack other Wikipedia editors with these veiled personal attacks and accusations of bad faith editing, while discounting the fact that the listing of the Fred Dalton Thompson filmography is actually promoting his acting career to the extent that he is receiving royalty income from his extensive career as a character actor (and one can readily verify this information by viewing the financial disclosure forms that Thompson filed with the U.S. Senate) for the character roles that Thompson played in both television and motion pictures. I find it somewhat ironic (although not unexpected) that Nibblesworth does not show any personal contribution history of either reducing or eliminating the Fred Dalton Thompson filmography.
I welcome discussion from registered members on this topic. Thanks. Nibblesworth 21:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
and also these comments by Nibblesworth from the User talk:Orangemike page [emphasis is mine]:
Fred Thompson
Howdy Orangemike! Saw your comments on the last edit for Fred Thompson, and I'd like to let you know that I'm currently putting together information that will help me create a more comprehensive, fact-centered article. I'm pro-Thompson, but DO NOT want to use the site as a campaign tool for him. I truly think this site should represent facts, and readers can make their own decision. Since you mentioned in your edit that you are not a Thompson fan, I was wondering if you'd help me construct something neutral? I'll compose it all, and if you'd review it to look for bias, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nibblesworth (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Reads to me like Nibblesworth is self-admittedly incapable of contructing his own NPOV edits or NPOV verifiable "facts" pertaining to the U.S. Senator Fred Thompson Lorrie Morgan 1994-1996 relationship within the Fred Dalton Thompson page. Why is Nibblesworth et al so vehemently opposed to letting the "readers can make their own decision[s]" pertaining to the factual and very adult U.S. Senator Fred Thompson Lorrie Morgan 1994-1996 relationship? Only considering comments from registered Wikipedia users by Nibblesworthet al at the Talk:Fred Dalton Thompson page in my opinion demonstrates an editorial intent contrary to the philosophy of John Stuart Mill and the Wkipedia principles pertaining to resolving content dispute and a markedly biased "pro-Thompson" point of view.
I went ahead and bolded the really important portion of what I wrote. Orangemike seems like a fair guy, and I figured he'd be a good person to act as a buffer for bias. I suggest you adopt a similar attitude of fairness, not for any reason other than you're making a fool out of yourself here. Good luck. Nibblesworth22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's over-the-top, and just the kind of fan-like link that makes our anonymous anti-Thompson guy so irritable. Leave it out. --Orange Mike16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
There are many types of this disease, so to put numbers like "63 percent" of people with NHL are dead in 5 years is not accurate. If we knew what type of lymphoma (Follicular, Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa associated lymphoid tissue, Small cell lymphoma, etc.), as well as his clinical stage, a more accurate number could be listed. Although we may find out the type, it is not likely that his physicians will disclose the details of his clinical staging. This is why I took out the 63 percent number. It'd be like saying, "10% of all pet owners have fleas in their house." That may be true, but the percentage of pet owners with flea problems is probably higher with dog owners compared to fish owners. If you knew someone was a fish owner, it wouldn't be right to say that he has a 10% chance of having fleas in his house.
We don't know what type of NHL Fred Thompson has, but *someone* does, and they've stated that it is a more indolent type. -- Monkey Poo Fight 12 April 2007
Including the number would violate WP:SYN unless there is a reliable source predicting mortality with respect to the subject of the article. -- THF02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
the section pertaining Fred Thompson's fight with cancer should include the reported date that he was first diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (and it is being widely reported in the U.S. news that Thompson was first diagnosed with cancer way back in 2004).
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Fred Dalton Thompson. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. tpv by Nibblesworth
Talk page vandalism
Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, User:Nibblesworth, is generally considered vandalism. Vandalism includes the action of any removal or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.}}
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Fred Dalton Thompson. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. modifying user's comments by Nibblesworth
Modifying users' comments
Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note Modifying users' comments
:and also these comments by Nibblesworth from the User talk:Orangemike page [emphasis is mine]:
Fred Thompson
Actual other user's comments modified by Nibblesworth:
Howdy Orangemike! Saw your comments on the last edit for Fred Thompson, and I'd like to let you know that I'm currently putting together information that will help me create a more comprehensive, fact-centered article.I'm pro-Thompson, but DO NOT want to use the site as a campaign tool for him. I truly think this site should represent facts, and readers can make their own decision. Since you mentioned in your edit that you are not a Thompson fan, I was wondering if you'd help me construct something neutral? I'll compose it all, and if you'd review it to look for bias, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nibblesworth (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Reads to me like Nibblesworth is self-admittedly incapable of contructing his own NPOV edits or NPOV verifiable "facts" pertaining to the U.S. Senator Fred Thompson Lorrie Morgan 1994-1996 relationship within the Fred Dalton Thompson page. Why is Nibblesworth et al so vehemently opposed to letting the "readers can make their own decision[s]" pertaining to the factual and very adult U.S. Senator Fred Thompson Lorrie Morgan 1994-1996 relationship? Only considering comments from registered Wikipedia users by Nibblesworthet al at the Talk:Fred Dalton Thompson page in my opinion demonstrates an editorial intent contrary to the philosophy of John Stuart Mill and the Wkipedia principles pertaining to resolving content dispute and a markedly biased "pro-Thompson" point of view.
This article seems NPOV with its mentioning of Ron Paul a few times... seems like someone added his name in there as advertising his run for president or something? I'm going to clean that up and remove Ron Paul from being mentioned unless it directly is important to the article --Napnet19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
NPOV
I won't edit the page, because I'm pro Thompson, but could we ensure that the same level of NPOV-professionalism is exercised form the anti-Thompson people? I mean, seriously...are we trying link him to the S&L crisis? I'm sure there's a much better way to explain his lobbying activities than to link it purely an S&L collapse. Furthermore, what is the point of saying he played a "racist demagogue"? It does a lot to brand him as such, whereas it does little to do anything else. How about someone try to make the article a bit more fair?
Ask yourselves if this is truly NPOV, those who have a conscience:
The glowering, hulking Mr. Thompson has played a White House chief of staff, a director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a highly placed F.B.I. agent, a rear admiral, even a senator. When Hollywood directors need someone who can personify governmental power, they often turn to him.[7]
Whaa? ... glowering, hulking ... give me a break. What are you afraid of? Sign me, curious.
